At 01:47 PM 09/30/1999 -0500, John_R_Zimmer@rush.edu wrote:>Glenn, I like your caveat:>>>>The one draw back to the Mediterranean as the flood local is the ancient>age of that event. I have provided much evidence over the years for human>activity, compassion, and moral accountability from millions of years ago>both on this list in the form of numerous posts as well as in my article>"Dating Adam," PSCF June 1999, pp 87-97 and in an upcoming communication in>the Sept. PSCF which discusses the evidence for moral accountability among>fossil men as long ago as 2 myr. (in this regard see>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/compass.htm>>>>This objection should not be seen as a fatal flaw.>>Comment:>>The concordist position that 'Genesis complements the evolutionary>record' actually conflates two complements. First, the Genesis text>complements the context of the times. I think that places Genesis as>legend (literary context) within Mesopotamian prehistory (social>context). Dick Fischer pointed to the Ubaid as the social>context for the stories of Adam and Eve. I agree.>>Second, the Genesis text complements another context: the origin>story that we moderns know as the evolutionary record.>>This second complement, I believe, may be rendered through>different artistic perspectives. Thus, the archaeological>indications for language, art, and spirituality in hominid species>antecedent to Homo sapiens (which you presented in 'Dating Adam')>may be regarded in a variety of ways.>>Unfortunately, your suggestion that these archaeological indications>must mean that Adam dates to before the Mediterranean infill (start>of the Pliocene, which you associate with Noah) fails on the>first aspect.

I don't accept the equivocation of Adam and Eve presented in a Mesopotamian
context equals Adam and Eve were therefore Mesopotamian (as Dick would
suggest). I would point out to the many blue-eyed, fair skinned and fair
haired Jesus paintings that can be found. Just because a presentation of a
historical figure is placed into a foreign context does not mean that the
historical figure is FROM that context! Thus because I don't accept your
assumption I don't have to accept your conclusion!

>>Instead, I prefer to associate these indications with the>declaration of intention in Genesis 1. "Let us make man in our>image and let him have dominion over...". Such an association>does not fail with respect fo either of the two aspects,>especially if one regards Genesis 1 as a vision (of the>evolutionary record by someone in Mesopotamian prehistory).

You and I agree that Genesis 1 teaches evolution. But I would like a
better explanation of how you concord a vision as presented in Genesis 1
with the evolutionary record. The order of events is so out of proper order
only by an ad hoc assumption of making overlapping days can the order be
correlated with the evolutionary record.>
glenn